Yating Zhang

Yiquan Wu, Siying Zhou, Yifei Liu et al.

Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become an increasingly crucial task in Legal AI, i.e., predicting the judgment of the case in terms of case fact description. Precedents are the previous legal cases with similar facts, which are the basis for the judgment of the subsequent case in national legal systems. Thus, it is worthwhile to explore the utilization of precedents in the LJP. Recent advances in deep learning have enabled a variety of techniques to be used to solve the LJP task. These can be broken down into two categories: large language models (LLMs) and domain-specific models. LLMs are capable of interpreting and generating complex natural language, while domain models are efficient in learning task-specific information. In this paper, we propose the precedent-enhanced LJP framework (PLJP), a system that leverages the strength of both LLM and domain models in the context of precedents. Specifically, the domain models are designed to provide candidate labels and find the proper precedents efficiently, and the large models will make the final prediction with an in-context precedents comprehension. Experiments on the real-world dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of our PLJP. Moreover, our work shows a promising direction for LLM and domain-model collaboration that can be generalized to other vertical domains.

Luyao Ma, Yating Zhang, Tianyi Wang et al.

Legal judgment prediction(LJP) is an essential task for legal AI. While prior methods studied on this topic in a pseudo setting by employing the judge-summarized case narrative as the input to predict the judgment, neglecting critical case life-cycle information in real court setting could threaten the case logic representation quality and prediction correctness. In this paper, we introduce a novel challenging dataset from real courtrooms to predict the legal judgment in a reasonably encyclopedic manner by leveraging the genuine input of the case -- plaintiff's claims and court debate data, from which the case's facts are automatically recognized by comprehensively understanding the multi-role dialogues of the court debate, and then learnt to discriminate the claims so as to reach the final judgment through multi-task learning. An extensive set of experiments with a large civil trial data set shows that the proposed model can more accurately characterize the interactions among claims, fact and debate for legal judgment prediction, achieving significant improvements over strong state-of-the-art baselines. Moreover, the user study conducted with real judges and law school students shows the neural predictions can also be interpretable and easily observed, and thus enhancing the trial efficiency and judgment quality.